In a nutshell, the story states that Hybels – one of the most influential Christian leaders of his generation – has been accused by several women of “a pattern of sexual harassment and misconduct.”

To my knowledge, no one claims today that Hybels engaged in sexual intercourse with them. Several years ago, one woman confided in a top Willow Creek leader that Hybels had a “prolonged consensual affair” with her lasting more than a decade, but she has since written a full retraction, confessing that she “wanted to tear [Bill] and Willow down and get it out of my system.”

But several other women have accused Hybels of “suggestive comments, extended hugs, an unwanted kiss, and invitations to hotel rooms.”

Charges first surfaced in April 2014, and Hybels has undergone two separate investigations since that time: an initial investigation by the elders of his church, and a second investigation by Jeffrey Fowler, an outside, independent investigator.

Hybels is due to retire in six months, and has already named a successor as lead pastor and another person as teaching pastor.

I have read everything I could about this story, including the Christianity Today story above, the Chicago Tribune story, and the written and video statements from Pam Orr, the elder chair at Willow, and Hybels himself. You can find them here:

I’ve also read comments from the above stories, as well as many comments on Facebook and Twitter.

For many years, I was an advocate of Willow Creek’s approach to church ministry:

*I attended four conferences at the church between 1990 and 2006.

*I pastored a seeker-driven church in Silicon Valley for many years. During my tenure there, our church sent twenty-two leaders to Willow Creek for training.

*My last three churches were all members of the Willow Creek Association.

*Although I met Bill Hybels once, he would not remember me.

However … I’ve never been enamored with everything Willow does, and have sometimes found myself perplexed or even upset about some of their policies.

But Willow Creek has always been known for its authenticity and transparency, and it’s the single trait I most admire about the church.

I believe that both Hybels and Willow’s elders have handled this situation in as transparent a fashion as possible. In both investigations, Hybels was asked to turn over his personal technology devices (which were forensically examined), his emails (many of which were automatically deleted from Willow’s server), personal financial records, personal church records, his calendar, and travel records.

How many pastors could survive such scrutiny?

Some pastors would have resigned before any investigation started so their life wouldn’t be exposed. Still other pastors might have confessed their wrongdoing before an investigation demonstrated their guilt.

But Hybels endured two thorough investigations, and according to Willow’s elders, did not lead or influence either one.

And let me say … as someone who was once investigated for several days … each day feels like a month.

Jeffrey Fowler, the outside investigator, told the Chicago Tribune: “After looking at thousands of documents, after interviewing 29 people, and doing as much as I possibly could, I concluded that there was no basis for believing that Pastor Hybels had engaged in a pattern and practice of misconduct, and to the extent any specific incident had been raised with me, I concluded that his actions in those instances were not inappropriate.”

But this has not satisfied some of Willow’s former staff members.

The names that keep being mentioned are John and Nancy Ortberg and Jim and Leanne Mellado. Assuming they are the two couples mentioned in the discussions about Hybels, I’ll just call them The Group.

But John Ortberg is the most prominent leader of the “opposition.”

John Ortberg was a teaching pastor at Willow for many years. He is presently the lead pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in the San Francisco Bay Area. I’ve heard Ortberg speak at a church he pastored in Diamond Bar, California nearly thirty years ago and again at Willow in 1994. I also had lunch with Ortberg’s predecessor fifteen years ago, so I have some familiarity with his ministry.

When the woman mentioned above claimed that she had an affair with Hybels, the Willow Creek Association Board voted not to conduct an investigation. Nancy Ortberg and several other Christian leaders resigned from the board in protest … which was their right.

But once they resigned … in my view … they forfeited their right to have any further input into the Hybels situation.

The Ortbergs were no longer Willow employees nor church members. They may have kept some personal ties, but they officially severed ties with the church. And as a founding staff member from Willow once taught me, “The way you leave is the way you’ll be remembered.”

When the elders decided to investigate Hybels internally, The Group evidently relinquished control of the situation.

But then Hybels was exonerated, not once, but twice.

But The Group did not agree with the process used … and presumably not the conclusions reached.

In fact, according to Bill Hybels:

“Unfortunately, it has become clear that when the woman retracted her story, the group of former staff members who brought the original allegation then began to reach out to women who are or who have been a part of Willow, asking if any of them have ever had an uncomfortable interaction with me. Without mentioning the woman’s full retraction, they told women that I had an inappropriate relationship that Willow’s Elders had covered up, and they invited the women to share any negative experiences of their own.”

They have now escalated their attacks against Willow’s elders and Hybels himself, to the point that Hybels is convinced they are colluding to destroy his reputation. Hybels told the Chicago Tribune:

“This has been a calculated and continual attack on our elders and on me for four long years. It’s time that gets identified. I want to speak to all the people around the country that have been misled … for the past four years and tell them in my voice, in as strong a voice as you’ll allow me to tell it, that the charges against me are false. There still to this day is not evidence of misconduct on my part.”

Hybels then told his congregation: “The lies you read about in the Tribune article are the tools this group is using to try to keep me from ending my tenure here at Willow with my reputation intact. Many of these alleged incidents purportedly took place more than [20] years ago. The fact that they have been dredged up now and assembled in a calculated way demonstrates the determination of this group to do as much damage as they possibly can.”

I’m trying to get my head around why a leader like John Ortberg … who was Hybels’ ministry colleague and friend … would do something like this.

The following questions are based purely on speculation:

*Did he and Bill fall out personally when they were both at Willow? Hybels evidently is not an easy man to work for.

*Did Ortberg secretly hope that he would be named Hybels’ successor?

*Does he view himself as the leader of a rival movement to Willow Creek?

*Has he become a public supporter of the #MeToo Movement, especially inside Christian churches?

*Does he know something from his time at Willow about the way the board protects Hybels regardless of any mistakes he’s made?

*Does Ortberg believe he is the best person possible to represent some of Hybels’ accusers?

*Does he really want Hybels to be exposed so he can repent and be restored?

I don’t know the answers to those questions, and Ortberg may not know the answers, either. He was recently quoted as saying, “This information came to us in a way that was unlooked for, unwanted, and it put us in a terrible situation.”

But a more likely possibility is that when Ortberg took his initial public stand against the elders and Hybels himself, he has tried ever since to show that he’s right and the leaders at Willow are wrong.

In other words, this conflict has degraded into winners and losers.

And if Hybels is declared innocent of all charges, that makes The Group look foolish, if not bad … causing some people to wonder if they’re guilty of fostering division and slander.

At this point, I’d like to share my own story briefly.

Like Hybels, I am now nearing the age of retirement. I dreamed of retiring while still a pastor.

But in December 2009, I resigned from my pastoral tenure of 10 1/2 years at a Bay Area church because I was lied right out of the church.

I wrote a book called Church Coup if you’re interested in my story. And I spent a lot of time in the book detailing the steps that lead a pastor to resign under duress.

My predecessor was involved in the coup. After going into retirement for nine years, he wanted to return to the church … but first had to push me out.

He worked with the board, the associate pastor, and others to get rid of me … and their plot worked.

After I left, a nine-person team investigated the charges against me and concluded that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Another pastor succeeded me. I have never spoken with him nor met him.

But I could never, ever do anything to undermine that pastor.

Why not?

*When I left the church, I left it for good. I have never returned for any kind of service or event … and I have no plans to do so.

*The church chose its own board members without my input. They govern the church. I have no say in what goes on there, and it would be unethical if I did.

*If the church mistreated someone … and many of my friends eventually left in tears or in anger … I might be able to advise them on what to do, but I would never think to advise the board … nor would they want my input.

Let me state this clearly:

It is unethical for a pastor or staff member to interfere with the governance of any church they once served.

God did not appoint John Ortberg to be the elder chair or one of the elders at Willow Creek Community Church.

God appointed him to serve as pastor of a church in the Bay Area instead. That’s where his authority lies.

He may have some moral or spiritual authority in the wider Christian community, but he has zero authority where he is not welcome.

And his ideas and counsel are not wanted by Willow’s elders.

The most breathtaking part of this entire story are the demands that The Group made to the elders at Willow. This is from the WC website:

“The two couples made specific demands outlining how they wanted the investigation to unfold and the control that they wanted to have—demands that our Elders deemed unreasonable and unbiblical. These demands included the following:

These couples (non–Willow members) would approve the choice of the investigator.

The investigation would run the full course of Bill’s adulthood (from 18 years old and ongoing).

These couples would be able to choose the witnesses who were interviewed, and all people interviewed would have full indemnification.

The investigation reports would all be public regardless of the outcome.

These couples would insist that there be a public admission of anything that they (not the investigator or the Elders) deemed inappropriate.”

When my wife reviewed the story the other night, she asked me this question: “Who do the Ortbergs think they are?”

Hybels has been thoroughly investigated twice. He has been exonerated both times. Why would Willow’s elders then turn over an investigation to people who seem to want Hybels’ scalp?

The elders of Willow have spoken unanimously. And they have shared their conclusion as to what’s really going on:

“This small group of former staff members has articulated outright to several people that they believe Bill does not deserve to finish his ministry tenure at Willow well, despite the thorough and conscientious investigative process that has cleared his name. It has become clear to us that they have decided to spread this sentiment through rumors and now through the media. They aggressively shopped the story to multiple media outlets. These actions fail to live up to biblical standards, and they have caused much pain for many people. We have deep sadness over the broken relationships with people we have respected and people we love. We are grieved for Bill and his family. After 42 years of faithfully pastoring you and me, our congregation, and after his family giving sacrificially, this has been painful beyond words for them.”

I’m sure there are people who do not like or agree with their verdict, but it’s time to accept it and for everyone to go home and focus on their own ministries.

From my vantage point … and I could be reading matters wrong … it looks like The Group … which includes Ortberg … is doing everything they can to get Hybels fired.

Let Bill Hybels serve out his last six months in peace.

If Hybels has been lying, the Lord will deal with him … either in this life, or the next life.

When I was a pastor, a friend once approached me at a planning meeting and informed me, “Jill (who wasn’t a team member) is mad at you.”

My initial response was not, “Why is she mad at me?”

It was, “How many people has she told?”

Looking away, my friend used both fingers to count, and then replied, “Ten.”

At that point, I asked, “What did I do to upset her?”

My friend replied, “You didn’t say hi to her one Sunday.”

How was I supposed to respond to such a complaint?

I know some pastors who would have said, “Thank you, friend, for bringing this situation to my attention. I will contact Jill as soon as possible and try and straighten this whole thing out.”

But I had learned a different … and far healthier … way to handle matters.

If Jill was upset with me, the onus was on her to contact me. Isn’t that what Jesus teaches in Matthew 18:15?

“If your brother sins against you, go and reprove him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother.”

My response?

“Please tell Jill that if she’s really upset with me, she needs to tell me personally. Otherwise, I will assume this isn’t an issue she really cares about.”

Jill never did contact me about that issue.

One of the characteristics of an unhealthy family is that family members fail to speak directly with the spouse or parent or child or sibling they’re upset with.

Instead, they share their feelings with other family members, but never with the object of their discontent.

A common scenario is that Brother Bill tells his Mother Mary that he’s upset with Sister Susie, but Bill never tells Susie directly.

And in many families, as soon as Bill leaves the house, Mary tells Susie what Bill told her.

But that kind of behavior doesn’t just happen in families … it also happens in churches … especially during major conflicts.

Nearly eight-and-a-half years ago, I called a meeting of our entire congregation to announce the resignations of the official church board as well as the associate pastor.

I didn’t want to make those announcements, but somebody had to do it, and as senior pastor, I was the logical choice.

Because the board members and associate pastor had resigned, their viewpoints and opinions should not have carried much, if any, weight with the congregation.

By resigning, they had forfeited their right to speak. As church conflict expert Speed Leas observes:

“It is understandable that someone who is hurt, not helped, or bored by what is going on in a congregation may choose to leave it. Indeed, it is understandable that one might choose to leave as a protest, hoping to influence the future policy or staffing. However, it is not appropriate that once having abandoned the responsibility of running and paying for a church’s ministry, one should have equal weight in telling those who are maintaining it how to run it. The right to confront an organization’s leadership comes with being responsible for its future. Therefore, it is important to consider members’ current commitment when they advise what should be done in the future or complain about what has happened in the past.”

But there was someone in the church who had spoken with individuals from the former board as well as the ex-associate.

In my book Church Coup, I called him George.

George decided to stand up in the meeting and speak for the board members and the associate pastor.

In fact, he recited a litany of charges against me, charges he claimed came directly from the mouths of those seven former leaders.

But George’s behavior raised all kinds of problems:

Did the board members give George permission to speak for them? How would the church know?

Did the associate give George permission to speak for him as well?

How accurately was George conveying their “charges?” He wasn’t reading a letter from any of them but was rattling accusations off the top of his head.

If people needed evidence or clarification, how well could George represent those leaders?

There’s a word for George’s actions. He was engaging in hearsay.

No one could verify the validity of George’s charges because he was speaking for people who were absent.

What if the board members or associate had lied to George?

What if George had misinterpreted what they were telling him?

And what if I wanted to respond to those charges? How could George continue to speak for them?

And was George aware that this was the first time I had ever heard most of those complaints?

Speed Leas comments:

“It is difficult to be in contact with partners who have left the scene. Sometimes people just drop out; they stop attending or participating in any church functions. But other times they stay at home and participate by telephone. Other people then come to the meetings bearing the grievances of dissatisfied persons who are not present to convey their views accurately and responsibly. This kind of behavior is difficult and annoying to deal with. Anonymous or relayed communications stay at the point where they began. . . . One bishop I know insists that the participants at conflict meetings only speak for themselves. He strongly encourages them to make ‘I think,’ or ‘I believe,’ or ‘I know’ statements rather than remarks such as ‘Some people have said’ or ‘A lot of people are upset’ or ‘I am speaking for those who have spoken to me and are afraid to speak out.'”

The more anxious families become, the more they slide into dysfunction.

And the more stressed church families become, the more dysfunctionality becomes the norm.

When a conflict is about something unrelated to the pastor, he can present biblical ground rules for communication and encourage all parties to practice them.

But when the pastor becomes the target of a conflict, he cannot publicly advise the church on how to handle matters.

For a church to survive a public assault on their pastor, the congregation needs one or more godly, sensible individuals to stand up assertively to define what healthy and unhealthy behavior looks like.

Is there anyone like that in your church right now?

Let me encourage you.

If you’re upset with another brother or sister in Christ … even if they’re a leader … you have five options:

*Let it go.

*Tell the Lord alone.

*End the relationship.

*Leave the church.

*Speak with the person directly.

It’s okay to consult with a wise believer provided they can be trusted … but even after such a consultation, you’re still left with only five choices.

And if you’re asked to represent others in public, gently defer … or you’ll be caught in a triangle between two parties.

In Luke 12:13, someone came to Jesus and asked Him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

Jesus responded, “Okay. Just give me your address and I’ll go speak with him right now.”

No, Jesus didn’t do that!

Instead, He asked this question:

“Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?”

Even Jesus stayed out of family squabbles and relational triangles.

If the Son of God was unwilling to speak for others, we should follow His example.

Like this:

Fifty years ago, Richard Nixon was once again running to become President of the United States.

And his campaign had planned a rally at the Anaheim Convention Center, across the street from Disneyland, one summer evening.

My friend Steve was going to be singing in a large youth choir, and he invited me to tag along … even though I didn’t know any of the songs.

When Steve and I first entered the Convention Center, we saw a woman that looked like Nixon’s wife Pat. We followed her for maybe ten minutes before we found out it wasn’t her.

The choir was positioned directly above the stage where Nixon would be speaking. After we sang our songs … which I had to learn quickly … Nixon spoke.

I can’t recall anything he said.

Two other remembrances from that evening:

*Steve and I ran into Burt Ward, who played Robin on the TV show “Batman,” and we both got his autograph. I have never seen someone write so fast in my life.

*Nixon had a catchy campaign song. The chorus went like this:

Nixon’s the one

Nixon’s the one

Nixon’s the one

For me

Ten year later, I was standing outside Anaheim (now Angel) Stadium after a game between the Milwaukee Brewers and the California Angels.

The lights were turned off behind Gate 1 where various ballplayers sometimes came out after the game. I was waiting to get the autographs of any player I could.

I remember getting the autograph of Brewer’s player Paul Molitor on his rookie card. He went on to become a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

And then former President Richard Nixon emerged from Gate One.

Nixon lived in nearby San Clemente, and he often visited the ballpark as a guest of Angels’ owner Gene Autry.

As I recall, he had two secret servicemen around him.

Three of us walked up to the ex-President and politely asked him for his signature. Nixon signed for all of us and was very compliant.

The Nixon Library, located in Yorba Linda, California, is probably fifty miles from my home. While I’ve only been there once, I’m on their mailing list, and receive invitations constantly for book signings, lectures, and special events.

President Nixon did far more good for his country than he’ll ever receive credit for, but most people will only remember him for Watergate.

But as former President Clinton once said:

_______________

Back in 1966, actor Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of my home state of California. He was elected for a four-year term.

Four years later, Reagan ran for re-election, and made many campaign stops.

One stop was at Loara High School in Anaheim … the school I attended. (Famous Loara grads include three singers: Jeff and Tim Buckley and Gwen Stefani.) Loara had won the AAA football championship two years before and had an award-winning band, so maybe that’s why the campaign stopped there.

After school one day, Reagan’s campaign bus drove onto the athletic field where many of us played.

The governor emerged and a few of us quickly went up to him and asked him for his signature.

(Unless a public figure is doing a meet and greet somewhere, the only way to get someone’s autograph is to walk up to them assertively and ask them for it.)

Reagan whipped out his own felt pen from his suit pocket and signed several items … left-handed … including a 3×5 index card for me and another for my friend Steve.

I should have stayed for whatever event was planned that day, but I was so excited to get Reagan’s autograph that I went straight home.

Fourteen years later, Reagan was running for a second term as President, and he came to DeAnza College in Cupertino, California … near the current Apple Headquarters … and held a rally in their stadium.

I took my kids along and hoisted my son Ryan on my shoulders so he could see the President when he was speaking.

We waved at the motorcade after the event, and I never saw President Reagan again. (Note the slogan on the Reagan poster below!)

However, my brother John lived in San Bernardino for many years, and he lived across the street from a Secret Service agent who told John that Reagan and his wife Nancy were flying into March Air Force Base in Riverside. Even though Reagan was no longer President, the agent asked John if he wanted to meet Reagan.

When the former President and his wife got off the plane, John and his wife Joy were the only two people there to greet them. Reagan greeted them both by name and John had video taken of the event.

The Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, is really cool. There’s a US government helicopter on display at the Nixon Library.

The Reagan Library has Air Force One … which you can tour!

_______________

There was a leader in my last church who was a lobbyist for a major corporation. He often flew to Washington DC during the week for important meetings.

Knowing my interest in politics, my friend asked me if I wanted to attend Bush’s first public speech after 9/11 in Sacramento, California.

I said yes.

When George W. Bush was re-elected President in 2004, my friend asked me if I wanted to attend Bush’s Inauguration.

I said yes.

We stayed at a 5-star hotel … it was 16 degrees outside and snowing the day before the event … but going to the inauguration was a lot of fun.

Another time, Bush 45 was going to be speaking to a group of business people at a hotel near the San Francisco Airport, and my friend invited me to go along.

As I recall, it was a $2000 a plate luncheon.

I remember seeing … and hearing … the protesters across the frontage road … going through security … being forced to wear a suit … and being given very little edible food for lunch.

Comedian Dennis Miller warmed up the crowd and introduced 45, and when he was almost done speaking, my friend leaned over and said to me, “When he’s done speaking, go up and shake his hand.”

So I did. There was a rope around the perimeter of the podium, but Bush came up to the rope afterward. When he shook my hand, I blanked out, and said, “Thank you.” He did a double take and then kept shaking hands.

“Thank you?” That was the best I could say?

_______________

In November 2012, Mitt Romney was running for President against incumbent Barack Obama.

Romney’s last rally was in Manchester, New Hampshire … ten minutes down the hill from the apartment my wife and I were renting at the time. (I was serving a church in New Hampshire as interim pastor.)

My wife was in California, and I had nothing else to do, so I drove downtown and walked to the Verizon Arena where Romney would eventually be speaking.

It was cold outside … 30 degrees … but the place was packed.

I met a guy in line, and we hung out together, taking photos of each other while standing about thirty feet from Romney.

Kid Rock sang a few songs … I didn’t know any of them, but they were LOUD … and some other politicians showed up and spoke.

Romney and his wife finally emerged around 11:30 pm. As rallies went, it was well-planned and exciting.

Romney lost New Hampshire anyway.

_______________

I’ve had brief encounters with three presidents … one before he took office, one while in office, and one after he left office.